1x wagering made sense

[$crypto$]

I'm probably one of those who didn't like it when the 1x wagering started popping up(at least in crypto casinos), but over time, I kind of get why they had to implement it. But let's be real, a 1x wagering requirement is basically nothing, and a lot of money launderers could still launder money through it.

Anyway, they could increase the wagering requirement to actually deter money launderers, but that would also deter other gamblers. I guess a 1x wagering requirement is the best they could do in order to not negatively affect casinos.

Money launderers always have a way to get away from the wagering requirements, especially with 1x it looks easy right, they can play with low risk and after that withdraw it.

But I'm sure the casino can identify this kind of behavior, now that I know the rules are getting stricter for those whose deposits are large, except that small players don't get into trouble.

Because money laundering is done in large quantities, the casino will automatically stake out the account.

[blomen]

What if the money is laundered, deposited on a gambling site and used to gamble in a way that 50% to 70% of the money is still remaining after wagering and it is withdrawn? Or the launderer make money from it and withdraw the money and th le profit? That does not make the money clean.

Casinos like the rules because it is a huge advantage for them.

There is a fiat gambling site that I have used before that do not require wagering before you can withdraw the money that you sent to it.

when you consider the rtp of casinos, a 1x wagering requirement is nothing to money launderers. in any game with an rtp of around 99%, you can easily launder money by losing just 1% of your funds. while money laundering is normally a very laborious process, this pales in comparison. what really needs to be prevented is the sudden transfer of millions of dollars. otherwise, it doesn’t matter how many wagering requirements they impose.

[ejikeme24]

Personally I don't  think if this idea will be effective, even though we keep saying that gambling is unpredictable but I can tell you for free that there are folks who are ready to pass 5-10x wagering requirements and came out successfully. Although this might seem like a good idea for them but as for those who are planning to do launder money I don't think if they will see it as much of a big deal, a casino is meant to know when thier users is doing something illegal, For example; if the deposit is made by a different person they will have to check the name in that betting account and that of the person that made the deposit or better still they could check his pattern of making deposit because their are some gamblers that usually deposit a certain amount whenever they want to gamble and they don't exceed that amount so if such person eventually deposit a large amount in his casino account, at this point a casino should be able to know that it's unusual and then they can start making investigation or keeping an eye on the user to see what he intend to do with the funds.

[terrific]

Those with the intention to launder money will simply stay there and fulfill the 1x wagering requirement.
It's an easy requirement to be honest and there can be some ways of doing it for them.
They're wise and that's why they're also using the casinos for that intention because they know they can.
But for newbies, they might be surprised that if they have changed their mind to gamble somewhere else and they have already deposited.
No option for them but to follow the rules and learn from it.

[ZeroVinsonN]

[That may be, but what's the point in putting money in an online casino and then withdrawing it without a single wager?

Anything can come up. You can deposit the money in the morning and later something come up in the afternoon. If I want I can also deposit a coin on an exchange and withdraw the coin without exchanging it to any other coin.

This can be phrased however way, say it's t the casinos advantage or what if the person ends up profiting from the bet the placed but this truth is that having a condition where you have to place at least 1 bet before you can withdraw your funds from a casino makes sense.

You are not getting my point. Gambling sites are centralized and have their own terms of service, but that does not change that the money laundered will not become clean after it has been used to wager.

I do get your point, what I'm just saying is that even though it's obvious that the casinos like this rule because it means people have to place bets if they've made a deposit else they won't be able to place a withdrawal it is also true that there is an intention to stop or at least reduce money laundering with it, it has nothing to do with making the money clean.
So now people who aren't trying to laundering money are also affected by it but that's doesn't automatically make it a bad rule, it just favours the casinos more than it actually hinders money laundering.

[coinlary]

Money launderers always have a way to get away from the wagering requirements, especially with 1x it looks easy right, they can play with low risk and after that withdraw it.

Not that easy, the moment you place only a 1x and try to withdraw, you will eventually  flag your account.

The only way  is playing continuously and withdrawing it continuously  aswell. Otherwise, you will trigger so many flags when you play few low risk games or do something closer to it and try to withdraw large amount of your money.

Laundering aren’t really that easy  on  Casinos .

Because money laundering is done in large quantities, the casino will automatically stake out the account.

Exactly!

[Hazink]

I always knew the 1x requirement was associated with limiting how people can use the casino to run laundry, clean money and move it out. Even as of that, I also don't even think it's really going to work, as it's easier to reach 1x and lose some money while withdrawing the rest. The policy is not that active for such purpose, but at the same time, it's better than leaving a deposit and withdrawing directly like that.

[Alvin_talk]

So the 1x wagering rule is not just there to make withdrawals harder, it can also help stop casinos from being used just to move money around.

Sometimes what's written on paper is not what is practiced in reality and I believe its the same for this case. A smart scammer will easily manoeuvre this wagering requirement and still get away with most part of the stolen coin. My guts tell me some of these regulations were twisted in ways that make these casinos more profitable. I also wouldn't completely rule out that they may even have insiders working for them among the regulation committee in order to make policies and regulations favourable for them.

[Findingnemo]

So the 1x wagering rule is not just there to make withdrawals harder, it can also help stop casinos from being used just to move money around.

Sometimes what's written on paper is not what is practiced in reality and I believe its the same for this case. A smart scammer will easily manoeuvre this wagering requirement and still get away with most part of the stolen coin. My guts tell me some of these regulations were twisted in ways that make these casinos more profitable. I also wouldn't completely rule out that they may even have insiders working for them among the regulation committee in order to make policies and regulations favourable for them.

There is no other way around, if a scammer deposit a mil then he should have wagered atleast a mil to withdraw it completely. But if you ask me there are games where you can complete wagering requirement without winning or losing much then yes, but no skipping is possible unless the casino itself is involved in this scheme and selectively allowing those withdrawals.

[Ryu_Ar1]

So the 1x wagering rule is not just there to make withdrawals harder, it can also help stop casinos from being used just to move money around.

This rule should be tightened a little especially for sites that do have licenses and reputations because the purpose of making gambling sites should be used to gamble not for other needs. The stigma of gambling is always bad because of several things including money laundering practices that still exist on gambling sites so that this slowly undermines trust and when there are sites that have licenses and have a reputation this should be used as an initial guideline so that their sites continue to operate as they should.

For gamblers who still complain about this requirement also feels strange because what we deposit for if not playing so complain just because it can not withdraw without betting it needs to be questioned for what they are on a gambling site if the money they deposit is not used to gamble.

[Miles2006]

I remembered the thread also, and my opinion was based on the fact 1x wagering is absolute a good plan besides why deposit in a casino when not ready to play using the platform probably for laundering purpose as mentioned. The casino implementing this rule is not a bad idea, the disadvantage associated with this has to do with risk and a 50/50 kind of bet although this rule is for all reason why a lot of gamblers without the intention of laundering finds it difficult to keep up with.
These guys the FATF are claiming to punish might not consider using the casino as a means for such dirty act, there are  other means and if by any chance they decide to use the casino definitely, there are other ways of sailing through.

[Mia Chloe]

~snip

The thing is by default everyone one of these casinos actually claim to do that because of money laundering cases. Anyways it is also an indirect psychological game on the gambler. Trivially they are hoping on the fact that you lose your balance during the process since it's still a possibility.

That being said, money launderers don't care losing as much as 20% of the total amount trying to meet the wagering requirements and successfully move the funds across.

[Alphakilo]

So the 1x wagering rule is not just there to make withdrawals harder, it can also help stop casinos from being used just to move money around.

This rule should be tightened a little especially for sites that do have licenses and reputations because the purpose of making gambling sites should be used to gamble not for other needs. The stigma of gambling is always bad because of several things including money laundering practices that still exist on gambling sites so that this slowly undermines trust and when there are sites that have licenses and have a reputation this should be used as an initial guideline so that their sites continue to operate as they should.

For gamblers who still complain about this requirement also feels strange because what we deposit for if not playing so complain just because it can not withdraw without betting it needs to be questioned for what they are on a gambling site if the money they deposit is not used to gamble.

Gamblers can always complain, but when there's standard TOS in the background, it becomes difficult to complain because of ignorance what is demanded. So it may be frustrating to gamblers, but it helps protect the gambling business from breaching regulations and facing sanctions.
Perhaps it's because of not obliging to such rules that get some gambling business banned because gamblers use them for such neferous practices and that's why the 1x wagering requirements makes more sense to me.

[M47AK16]

And you think paying 1x wagering will be too much fee to pay for people that have big amounts to launder through the casino? Casinos can make their rules I’m not against them doing that, but what I don’t agree to is you thinking that the 1x wagering requirement will discourage money laundering. If they like let them make it 10x wagering requirement, people that went to do money laundering through their casino will pay and go ahead with their business.

The requirement is not to stop money laundering completely, but it is to make it more difficult, because of course, a single precaution is not always enough to stop something from happening, but every precaution or every step will make it more difficult for criminals to complete their evil work. If a casino has no wagering requirement at all for a deposit, someone can basically just make a deposit, and then make a withdrawal right after that. This will basically mix their coins, or the casino will send them funds from their reserves and the cold wallet where they keep their funds, which means that if they had deposited funds that they wanted to get rid of, they now got clean funds without any problem.

However, this 1x wagering requirement will at least make it possible for them to lose their money if they try to complete the requirement. For example, if someone deposits $1,000 in a casino, and there is a 1x requirement, they can simply make two $500 bets in Dice or any other game, and reach the requirement. However, there is no guarantee that they are going to win those bets, right? Because it's gambling, and in gambling, anything is possible. So this rule is important for this reason even if it doesn't stop them completely.

[Hispo]

I always knew the 1x requirement was associated with limiting how people can use the casino to run laundry, clean money and move it out. Even as of that, I also don't even think it's really going to work, as it's easier to reach 1x and lose some money while withdrawing the rest. The policy is not that active for such purpose, but at the same time, it's better than leaving a deposit and withdrawing directly like that.

I think the policy of keeping a minimum wagering requirement of 1x is actually effective because, together with the edge of the house, it can actually make crime syndicates and money launderers to lose money in the long term.
It does not make sense from the perspective of a money launderers to try to launder money if they are going to lose the money they actually intend to launder in the long term.

Perhaps, that is why criminals sometimes favour physical casinos, where they are use chips, take those chips outside of the casino and launder their money easier than what it would take them to do it on crypto casinos.

[avp2306]

~snip

The thing is by default everyone one of these casinos actually claim to do that because of money laundering cases. Anyways it is also an indirect psychological game on the gambler. Trivially they are hoping on the fact that you lose your balance during the process since it's still a possibility.

That being said, money launderers don't care losing as much as 20% of the total amount trying to meet the wagering requirements and successfully move the funds across.

That's their main claim and also used as reason that they are complying with government regulation, but if you look at closely the result. If there's successful laundering cases happened. Their casino will still get a profit and they will not get questioned for this matter, since they can point out that they are complying with the rules.

Also at the end of the day with this. Casino still held as the winner with that 1x wager requirements they impose and again people will always carry the risk for possible losing.

[boyptc]

So the 1x wagering rule is not just there to make withdrawals harder, it can also help stop casinos from being used just to move money around.

They're making it harder and that's accompanied with kyc requirement too.

These casinos are regulated and that's why they'll have to do it to monitor them as well and to find out if someone is using them for that sole purpose.

Perhaps, that is why criminals sometimes favour physical casinos, where they are use chips, take those chips outside of the casino and launder their money easier than what it would take them to do it on crypto casinos.

And they're even treated well there as vip which they like.

[IjawMan]

What if the money is laundered, deposited on a gambling site and used to gamble in a way that 50% to 70% of the money is still remaining after wagering and it is withdrawn? Or the launderer make money from it and withdraw the money and th le profit? That does not make the money clean.

Casinos like the rules because it is a huge advantage for them.

The aim is to simply make money laundering through casino sites a no common stunts for people who will want to take advantage when a no 1x wagering is not made compulsory.

Provided that there exist a compulsory wagering to a new time, it will serve as a control mechanism to reduce the likelihood of casinos to be freely used as passage for money laundering, cause before an attempt there will be the contemplation and fear of losing the money to the casino. Do no forget it that there are casinos that makes sure the player wager with a total amount of their deposit before they can withdraw it.

There is a fiat gambling site that I have used before that do not require wagering before you can withdraw the money that you sent to it.

You can hardly find that negligence with online cryptocurrency casinos. The regulation up there is rtoo nut tightened.

[Asuspawer09]

Its difficult to assume anything since there were a lot of loopholes, and anyone could take advantage of that on the platform, if they are going to launder money on it, they could pretty much do it anytime.

Just having a requirement wager is not going to do anything about that because they just have the money to do it anyway, anyone could easily pretend and bypass that if thats what they are doing to stop the money laundering then it is just useless and not going to work. Anyone could play and bet just like a normal gambler, I mean if they are going to do it right they are going to make it look like not something that is suspicious.

Basically these rules are just for casinos, because they needed it and they wanted it to slow the movement of the money for sure inside, but it's not for something like this to stop criminals etc.

[Hispo]

Perhaps, that is why criminals sometimes favour physical casinos, where they are use chips, take those chips outside of the casino and launder their money easier than what it would take them to do it on crypto casinos.

And they're even treated well there as vip which they like.

Well, I don't know if they are treated like VIPs or not.
Being treated like one would imply they have lost a significant amount of money to the casino, so the casino can offer perks and other good benefits to those gambler who also happen to me money launderers.
Brick and mortar casinos don offer VIP treatments to people based on their volume alone, then actually need to lose money to the casino in order for the casino to give hotel rooms, use of their limosine, access to their VIP restricted areas in the casino and free drinks.

But I would not be surprised some of those casinos actually welcome dirty money being deposited and exchanged into chips. As some people has said: Money does not smell...